I don't know the stats... and I'm relying on those of you good at getting stats to contribute here.
On the face of it, just a gut reaction, the 'turnover' thing seems odd to me... that is: That it is just accepted that it's nearly 'everything' in determining wins. Pretty easy to accept that something like a 4 turnover spread would determine a winner but 1? And yet that seems to be the prevailing wisdom. Seems to me a spread of 1 in turnovers, in any given game, being 'the', or close too, the determining factor pretty much discounts coaching, talent, everything else. I can't help but wondering what the stats are regarding a difference in 1 turnover, 2, 3 and so on.
